Jan. 2008 EDUCATION
Warriors stand in a position above the other three castes, and are
supposed to be professional administrators, so they need to study
and gain an extensive understanding of the principles of things.
Even so, warriors om times of warfare invariably participate in
their first combat by the age of fifteen or sixteen, doing their
work as knights, so they practice martial arts from the age of
twelve or thirteen. For that reason they have no time for study, and
are naturally illiterate.
During the Era of the Civil Wars, there were any number of warriors
who couldn't even look up a word in the dictionary. That was not
necessarily because of their own negligence, or because their
parents raised them badly, but because their immediate need was to
concentrate on military arts.
As for warriors born in the present era, when the land is at peace,
I wouldn't say it doesn't matter if they care little for military
arts, but since this is not a world in which they absolutely must go
into combat from the age of fifteen or sixteen, they should be
taught classical literature, reading, and writing, from the age of
seven or eight. Then when they are fifteen or sixteen, they ought to
be taught to practice archery, horsemanship, and all the other
martial arts. This should be the basic aim of educating the children
of warriors in peaceful times.
Illiteracy among warriors in times of chronic warfare has a reason.
There is no legitimate reason for illiteracy among warriors in an
era of peace. Children are not to blame for this; it is only due to
the negligence they do not know the way to love their children.
Warriors stand in a position above the other three castes, and are
supposed to be professional administrators, so they need to study
and gain an extensive understanding of the principles of things.
Even so, warriors om times of warfare invariably participate in
their first combat by the age of fifteen or sixteen, doing their
work as knights, so they practice martial arts from the age of
twelve or thirteen. For that reason they have no time for study, and
are naturally illiterate.
During the Era of the Civil Wars, there were any number of warriors
who couldn't even look up a word in the dictionary. That was not
necessarily because of their own negligence, or because their
parents raised them badly, but because their immediate need was to
concentrate on military arts.
As for warriors born in the present era, when the land is at peace,
I wouldn't say it doesn't matter if they care little for military
arts, but since this is not a world in which they absolutely must go
into combat from the age of fifteen or sixteen, they should be
taught classical literature, reading, and writing, from the age of
seven or eight. Then when they are fifteen or sixteen, they ought to
be taught to practice archery, horsemanship, and all the other
martial arts. This should be the basic aim of educating the children
of warriors in peaceful times.
Illiteracy among warriors in times of chronic warfare has a reason.
There is no legitimate reason for illiteracy among warriors in an
era of peace. Children are not to blame for this; it is only due to
the negligence they do not know the way to love their children.
Feb. 2009 Big Talk and Criticism
Among warriors there those who criticize; they seem similar, but it
should be understood that they are very different.
Let me explain. Among warriors of old there were any number of
knights who had gained a reputation for big talk. Even among the
bannermen of the shogun there have been some big talkers. In their
time, there were a handful of warriors know as big talkers in the
established of the baronial houses in every province.
Those big talkers had all done distinguished military service time
and again, and lacked nothing in terms of the warrior code; yet they
were held back socially and professionally by the fact that they
could sometimes be so stubborn that they could not serve as
advisors. Their salaries and positions did not match up to their
distinguished reputations, so they developed a devil-may-care
attitude, saying whatever they wanted to, whenever they wished. And
yet the overlords and they became more and more uninhibited, big
talkers for the rest of their lives.
As for the big talkers of today, they have never even donned a suit
of armor, yet whenever they get together with their cronies they
criticize their employer's management of the establishment, or the
personnel policies of the board of directors; and besides that, they
also gossip to their hearts' content about their peers and
colleagues. People like this, morons who think they alone are the
smart ones, are vastly different from the big talkers of ancient
times. What they do should rather be called bad-mouthing or talking
trash.
Among warriors there those who criticize; they seem similar, but it
should be understood that they are very different.
Let me explain. Among warriors of old there were any number of
knights who had gained a reputation for big talk. Even among the
bannermen of the shogun there have been some big talkers. In their
time, there were a handful of warriors know as big talkers in the
established of the baronial houses in every province.
Those big talkers had all done distinguished military service time
and again, and lacked nothing in terms of the warrior code; yet they
were held back socially and professionally by the fact that they
could sometimes be so stubborn that they could not serve as
advisors. Their salaries and positions did not match up to their
distinguished reputations, so they developed a devil-may-care
attitude, saying whatever they wanted to, whenever they wished. And
yet the overlords and they became more and more uninhibited, big
talkers for the rest of their lives.
As for the big talkers of today, they have never even donned a suit
of armor, yet whenever they get together with their cronies they
criticize their employer's management of the establishment, or the
personnel policies of the board of directors; and besides that, they
also gossip to their hearts' content about their peers and
colleagues. People like this, morons who think they alone are the
smart ones, are vastly different from the big talkers of ancient
times. What they do should rather be called bad-mouthing or talking
trash.
March 2008 Familial Duty
For warriors, taking good care of parents is fundamental. If people do not
care for their parents, they are not good, even if they are exceptionally
smart, well-spoken, and good looking.
Let me explain. In the way of the warrior, it is essential to do it right
from root to branch. If you do not understand the toot and the branch,
there is no way for you to know your duty. One who does not know his
duty can hardly be called a warrior.
Knowing the root and the branch means understanding that our parents are
the root of our bodies and our bodies are branches of the fresh and bones
of our parents. It is because of the desire to establish ourselves, who are
the parents, who are the roots. This is because of failure to understand
root and branch.
Now then, there are two ways of taking food care of your parents.
Suppose there are parents of a mild temperament, who educate their
children with true kindness and affection, provide for them, marry them
well and the retire, leaving them well situated, with an adequate estate.
For children of such parents to take ordinary care of them is nothing
particularly praiseworthy or impressive.
Even with strangers, when they have treated us kindly and helped us out
personally or financially, we do not overlook it, if they are in need, we are
even willing to set aside our own affairs. How much less could we ever
expect to think that we have done enough to care for our parents,
considering the depth of the love they shown us in every way. For this
reason O say that ordinary familial duty is nothing remarkable.
Now suppose there are parents who are obstreperous, cranky and
argumentative, who insist on running the household and refuse to hand
over anything, who are importunate, inconsiderate and demanding and top
of that complain to others how vexed and troubled they are by the poor
treatment they get from their sons, thus damaging their children's
reputations. To honor even such unreasonable parents as parents, to take
the trouble to humor them, to lament their aging and decline and take care
of them sincerely, without a bit of negligence- this is the aim of dutiful
children.
When a warrior with this spirit takes an overlord as an employer and
becomes an official, he understands the requirements of loyalty and duty.
When his employer is flourishing this is a matter of course, but even
when something unexpected happens to his employer and he has all sorts
of troubles, a warrior is still fiercely loyal and does not leave his
employer's side even when a hundred allies are reduced to ten, even when
ten are reduced to one, so steadfastly loyal in battle as to disregard his
own life.
Parents and employers, familial duty and loyalty, these differ only in
name, for there is no difference in the sincerity of the heart. So it is that
an ancient is reported to have said,
'Look for loyal minister in homes with filial sons". There is no such thing
as someone who is disrespectful to his parents yet faithful to his
employer. If someone is so immature as to be remiss in familial care for
his parents, who are the origin of his own body, there is no way his flesh
and blood, to be completely loyal.
If a man who is not caring toward his parents at home does go into the
service of a lord, he keeps his eyes on his employer's balances sheet and
as soon as he sees any little slip his attitude changes, in an emergency he
will flee or turn traitor. There are cases like this past and present, this is
something to be ashamed of, something to wary of.
PAGE 1
For warriors, taking good care of parents is fundamental. If people do not
care for their parents, they are not good, even if they are exceptionally
smart, well-spoken, and good looking.
Let me explain. In the way of the warrior, it is essential to do it right
from root to branch. If you do not understand the toot and the branch,
there is no way for you to know your duty. One who does not know his
duty can hardly be called a warrior.
Knowing the root and the branch means understanding that our parents are
the root of our bodies and our bodies are branches of the fresh and bones
of our parents. It is because of the desire to establish ourselves, who are
the parents, who are the roots. This is because of failure to understand
root and branch.
Now then, there are two ways of taking food care of your parents.
Suppose there are parents of a mild temperament, who educate their
children with true kindness and affection, provide for them, marry them
well and the retire, leaving them well situated, with an adequate estate.
For children of such parents to take ordinary care of them is nothing
particularly praiseworthy or impressive.
Even with strangers, when they have treated us kindly and helped us out
personally or financially, we do not overlook it, if they are in need, we are
even willing to set aside our own affairs. How much less could we ever
expect to think that we have done enough to care for our parents,
considering the depth of the love they shown us in every way. For this
reason O say that ordinary familial duty is nothing remarkable.
Now suppose there are parents who are obstreperous, cranky and
argumentative, who insist on running the household and refuse to hand
over anything, who are importunate, inconsiderate and demanding and top
of that complain to others how vexed and troubled they are by the poor
treatment they get from their sons, thus damaging their children's
reputations. To honor even such unreasonable parents as parents, to take
the trouble to humor them, to lament their aging and decline and take care
of them sincerely, without a bit of negligence- this is the aim of dutiful
children.
When a warrior with this spirit takes an overlord as an employer and
becomes an official, he understands the requirements of loyalty and duty.
When his employer is flourishing this is a matter of course, but even
when something unexpected happens to his employer and he has all sorts
of troubles, a warrior is still fiercely loyal and does not leave his
employer's side even when a hundred allies are reduced to ten, even when
ten are reduced to one, so steadfastly loyal in battle as to disregard his
own life.
Parents and employers, familial duty and loyalty, these differ only in
name, for there is no difference in the sincerity of the heart. So it is that
an ancient is reported to have said,
'Look for loyal minister in homes with filial sons". There is no such thing
as someone who is disrespectful to his parents yet faithful to his
employer. If someone is so immature as to be remiss in familial care for
his parents, who are the origin of his own body, there is no way his flesh
and blood, to be completely loyal.
If a man who is not caring toward his parents at home does go into the
service of a lord, he keeps his eyes on his employer's balances sheet and
as soon as he sees any little slip his attitude changes, in an emergency he
will flee or turn traitor. There are cases like this past and present, this is
something to be ashamed of, something to wary of.
PAGE 1
